Mr. READ said, he intended to propose an amendment, providing that the Justices should be elected, at the time of the election of Constables, and the Aldermen at the time of the Assessors.

Mr. BANKS considered this, he said, another feature which ought to be introduced into this plan, in order to render it acceptable to the people. The amendment of the gentleman from Fayette, was objectionable, because it did not fix a time for the election.

Mr. DENNY said, he voted, yesterday, for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Fayette, (Mr. FULLER) though he considered it imperfect. He should now vote against this proposition, in the hope, that something better would be obtained. The plan of the gentleman from Fayette, come nearer to his views, than any other which had yet been offered, and he, therefore, voted for it. He was in favor of electing the Justices, in the several townships and wards, but the difficulty was, in carrying the plan into effect. With regard to the amendment now offered by the gentleman from Philadelphia county, (Mr. EARLE) he would remark. that there were some twelve or fifteen Aldermen in Pittsburg, and that four to each ward, were quite sufficient, even for the largest wards. Four Justices would be sufficient for most of the townships; but they required rather more Justices than ordinarily attended to business, in the counties where they were frequently wanted, for the purpose, merely, of taking acknowledgments, and depositions.

Mr. STERIGERE said he had heard no expression of opinion among his constituents in favor of the election of Justices of the Peace. If such a wish existed among them, he was ignorant of it. He did not think they desired such an amendment. He believed if the number of Justices was limited within proper bounds, and a check put upon the Governor's appointment of them, as the negative of the Senate, and their term of office limited to five years, the people of his county would be perfectly satisfied; and, under this conviction, he had proposed the amendment which he had offered, embracing these provisions. The Convention having decided by a large majority, that Justices should be elective, was strong evidence of public opinion in favor of that mode of appointment, and he should hereafter sustain it with such guards as might be deemed salutary. He had voted against the amendment offered by the delegate from Fayette, (Mr. FULLER,) because it placed no limit to the number of Justices, and required two contests for these officers in every township and borough: one to fix on the number, and another to elect them, which he thought objectionable. Under this amendment he thought the smallest townships would generally have the greatest number of Justices, because the candidates would have few voters to influence, and could easily effect their purposes by combining together. If it had been negatived, he had intended to offer an amendmont which he read as follows, for information.

"The citizens qualified to vote for members of the Legislature, shall, at such times and in such manner as may be provided by law, elect one Justice of the Peace in each township, borough, and ward, containing not less than fifty, nor more than two hundred taxable inhabitants-and two Justices in each township, borough, and ward, containing more than two hundred taxable inhabitants, unless a greater number be allowed by law. They shall be commissioned by the Governor and hold their offices for

five years, if they so long behave themselves well; but shall be removed on conviction of misbehavior in office, or of any infamous crime, or on the address of the Senate."

ces.

In Montgomery county, said (Mr. S.) there are about fifty acting Justi The amendment offered by the delegate from the county, (Mr. EARLE,) authorized the increase of that number to one hundred and thirtytwo in Montgomery, increasing their nu ber there about three fold. And he supposed it would have a like effect in other counties, makin above four thousand in the State. Under the amendment to it, which he had moved, and which was now pending, the number in Montgomery would be about forty-five, and could not exceed sixty-four, unless authorised by a special act of Assembly, and would make the number in the State between one thousand five hundred and two thousand. With this mendmen to it, he would vote for the amendment of the delegate from Fay ette; but without such limitation, he should vote against it, and hoped it would be negatived, in order that the amendment he had read as information to the Convention, or some other satisfactory provision on this subject, might be adopted,

Mr. BELL said, the difficulty arose from the mistake made by the committee, in endeavoring to establish a ratio of Justices to the population.Any plan upon this basis would fail to give satisfaction, because, it must be founded upon the population of some particular district, and, of course, would not be adapted to the wants of other districts which were differently situated. The most satisfactory disposition that could be made of the subject, would be to leave it to the Legislature. What might be a a very suitable number of Justices for a particular place or district, at one time, might be insufficient at another time. For these reasons, he would leave it to the Legislature to regulate the number according to the different wants of the respective distriots at different times, in the course of a year. This duty seemed to him to come within the particular province of the Legislature. We ought, he said, to avoid the practice to which we were to much inclined, of descending to minutiæ, and performing a duty which belonged more properly to ordinary legisla tion. He intended to offer an amendment, providing that there should be one Justice in each county, township, &c., unless otherwise directed by law. We should by this, leave it to the Legislature, upon the representation of the people, to give them a greater number, if they desired it, or none at all, if they wanted none. We should first establish a general rule, and then allow all the exceptions to it to the Legislature.

Mr. SILL said, the rule proposed would be attended with considerable inconvenience. Two Justices were sufficient for most of the towns and boroughs, and again there were others, where four would not be sufficient. Sometimes it would happen that a Magistrate is wanted, when he was not at home, and sometimes it is very necessary for two Justices to unite in an official act. The best system, therefore, would be to leave the number open to the Legislature. This would be much better than to adopt a ratio bound on the number of inhabitants, which would form a very uncertain criterion. In some townships there was not a single Justice of the Peace; and in another county, Erie, where there were six or seven hundred taxables, there were six or seven Justices of the Peace in commission, and dis

there being too many. The number must necessarily depend on the business of the people and we could not adopt a common standard for the whole. If we adopted the plan of electing the Justices by the people, we ought to leave their number to be regulated by the Legislature. That was the least exceptionable mode that could be adopted.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, suggested that there ought not to be more than one Justice for each ward.

Mr. MERRILL, of Union, said a word or two in favor of leaving the people to decide on the proper number of Justices to be elected for their own township, ward or borough. He did not think four would be sufficient. The amendment offered by Mr. STERIGERE was then negatived.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia, thought that four would not be sufficient in some parts of the State, therefore it was that he had left some of the boroughs out in some instances. If the gentleman from Erie would say

how many.

Mr. SILL said, that he thought six would be sufficient.

Mr. EARLE, then observed that he would thus modify his amendment, which he hoped would prevail. It had been objected to that four were too many. But, when it was recollected that some townships extended over many miles, he felt sure that four would not be considered too many for a large town. In the State of New York, four Justices of the Peace were elected in the large towns. And, as that number, had not been found inconveniently large there, it would not be in this State.

The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. EARLE, and it was negatived.

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna brought to view a proposition which, he said he thought combined the views of a majority of the committee, and which he should offer if this amendment should be negatived. He would move an amendment, providing that Justices of the Peace and Aldermen, shall be elected in the several wards, townships, and boroughs, for the term of five years; that one shall be elected for each district, unless otherwise ordered by law; and that the Justices shall be elected at the election of Constables, and the Aldermen at the election of Assessors.

The question being then taken on the amendment to the report of the committee as amended, it was negatived.

The question next recurred on agreeing to the report of the committee as amended.

Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, asked for the yeas and nays. And the question being taken was decided in the affirmative-Yeas 57, Nays 51.

YEAS-Messrs. Banks, Barndol'ar, Bedford, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Crain, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Doran, Earle, Farrelly, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Grennell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, High, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Krebs, Mu in, M'Cahen, Merrill, Miller, Montgomery, Myers, Overfield, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Saeger, Sellers, Sheetz, Sh.llito, Sill, Smyth, Stickel, Swetland, Tig zart, Young.-57.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barnitz, Bayne, Bell, Biddle, Carey, Chamber, Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Cline, Cochran, Cope, Crum, Cunninghan, Darlington, Denny, Donnell, Dunlop, Fleming, Gearhart, Harris, Hiester, Hopkinson, Jenks, Konigmacher,

ter, of Lancaster, Reigart, Russell, Scott, Serrill, Snively, Sterigere, Stevens, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, Sergeant, President.-51.

On motion of Mr. MEREDITH, the committee rose.
The Convention then adjourned.

SATURDAY, JULY 8, 1837.

Mr. INGERSOLL, of Philadelphia, presented a memorial, by delegation, of twenty thousand citizens, of the city and county of Philadelphia, relative to the suspension of specie payments of the banks, and the issue of notes under five dollars, by city and county authorities, and other corporations, which was refered to the special committee on currency, corporations, public high-ways, and eminent domain. Laid on the table.

Mr. BELL, from the select committee appointed yesterday, to inquire and report what eligible place could be procured for the meeting of the Convention, on the 17th of October next, asked leave for the committee to visit the cities of Philadelphia and Lancaster, to make the necessary inquiries on the subject.

Mr. HOPKINSON, of Philadelphia, inquired, if a delegation from the committee would not be sufficient to obtain all the required information, or if the business could not be transacted by correspondence.

Mr. BELL replied, that he was only acting in obedience to instructions. It was thought that time would be saved, by visiting the cities. Correspondence would be productive of delay. The committee thought, they might not be able to discharge the duty assigned to them, so as to make their report in time, without a personal examination.

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, opposed the granting of leave. He would not consent to send a travelling committee through the country. He was sure that there was a majority of twenty in this body, against removing from this place. If we moved to another place, printers would have to be re-appointed, and new officers to be chosen.

Mr. MARTIN, of Philadelphia, believed the Convention could be well accommodated, either in the Northern Liberties, or the city of Philadelphia, but the committee must examine, to determine where would be the best accommodations. The printers could go on here, wherever the Convention might determine to sit.

Mr. KERR, of Washington, agreed with the gentleman from Susquehanna. He would not send a travelling committee abroad. This would be another item of expense. The Convention was about to become unpopular enough, without going to Philadelphia. He would move to amend, by inserting "at this place."

The PRESIDENT said, this was a motion for leave, and it was not in order to make the amendment.

Mr. INGERSOLL asked, if the Convention were to wait here, until the committee returned; because, in that case, they might have to sit all the

send for persons and papers. He had written something about travelling committees, and could not vote for this motion.

Mr. CHANDLER, of Philadelphia, did not know how the committee could perform the duties assigned to it, without visiting the cities, or making the requisite inquiries. He hoped the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. INGERSOLL) would always hold himself bound by what he had written, and he hoped also, that no persons and papers would be sent for.

Mr. CLARK, of Dauphin, regarded the motion as premature. The Convention might get through before December, and if it was found they could not, they might, after three or four weeks, remove to Philadelphia. The authorities of this place, were disposed to make every effort to accommodate the Convention, and it would be cheaper to remain here, than to go to Philadelphia.

Mr. REIGART, of Lancaster, said this was no personal accommodation to the members of the committee. They had to fulfil the duties devolved upon them. The committee could get to Philadelphia to-morrow afternoon, return here on Tuesday evening, and make a report on Wednesday morning. A letter could be despatched and answered time enough for the committee to report. The resolution was just as proper for this place, as for any other, and would report a plan of it, if they found they could have this Hall, or good accommodations here.

Mr. HIESTER, of Lancaster, when he voted for the committee, had no idea that they should travel all over the State. The business could just as well be done by letters. It had not been yet settled, that the Convention would leave this place. It would be useless for the committee to go to Lancaster, having no power to make a contract.

Mr. BELL, then withdrew his motion for leave.

Mr. KERR of Washington, submited the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the meeting of this Convention, on the 17th of October next, be at this place."

Mr. STEVENS stated, that the place was already fixed by law, unless by motion, the Convention assigned some other place. The disadvantage of an equal division would be, that the resolution would be lost. He supposed, that no one would have thought of coming here, in the middle of Octoder, when the place is sickly. We shall want desks, as these we use belong to the Senate. Some place must be fitted up, as the Legislature would crowd us out, in about a month after our meeting.

66

Mr. KERR was aware of these facts, but his object was to settle the question. He modified his resolution, by adding, and that the committee be discharged forom the further consideration of the subject."

Mr. MEREDITH suggested, whether it would appear in the face of the world, like the act of a deliberative body, to say to-day, that we would discharge a comittee, appointed only yesterday, without waiting for the report of that committee.

Mr. KERR would not withdraw his motion, but was willing to postpone it.

Mr. MEREDITH moved, to postpone the further consideration of the motion, until Thursday.